SUITABLE ARSENIC MITIGATION OPTIONS IN BANGLADESH: VOICES OF LOCAL PEOPLE

Manzurul Hassan1, Peter Atkins2 and Christine Dunn3

This is an early draft. For the published paper please see Indian Journal of Landscape Systems and Ecological Studies, 27, 2 (2004), 1-7

Dr M.M. Hassan, Department of Geography, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka 1342,

Bangladesh. Email: manzurul_hassan@hotmail.com.

2

Dr P.J. Atkins, Department of Geography, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, United

Kingdom. Email: p.j.atkins@durham.ac.uk.

3

Dr C.E. Dunn, Department of Geography, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, United

Kingdom. Email: c.e.dunn@durham.ac.uk.

1

ABSTRACT Groundwater arsenic mitigation is a major contemporary issue and research theme in Bangladesh. From the very beginning of the identification of groundwater arsenic concentrations, mitigation policies have been formulated by government agencies, non-government organisations, and other stakeholders. This paper employs mainly qualitative enquiry to investigate suitable arsenic mitigation options, using local rural peoples voices to investigate their relative merits and demerits. Participant observation, in-depth interviews, focus-group discussions, as well as formal and nonformal dialogue were the principal means of generating data.

INTRODUCTION Groundwater arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh has since the early 1990s been recognised as a major environmental health hazard. Estimates vary but a minimum of 25 million people are presently exposed to the risk of chronic symptoms that range from changes in skin pigmentation to cancers of the skin, bladder, liver or lung (Hassan, 2003; Hassan et al., 2003). In recent years attention has turned to

mitigation. Since therapies for arsenicosis are limited, options must be considered that will either prevent or reduce exposure. These include (a) chemical and nonchemical options; (b) household and community options (Anstiss et al. 2001; Brewster, 1992; Chen et al., 1999; Cheng et al., 1994; Ghurye et al., 1999; Hering et al., 1996; Hoque et al., 2000; Jekel, 1994; Kartinen and Martin, 1995). The purpose of this paper is to consider a neglected aspect, what the local people think about the mitigation options. It seems to us to be crucial that consumers attitudes should not be neglected in the rush to find appropriate technological solutions. A number of factors are important, from the obvious matters of affordability and practicability, to the less tangible socio-cultural considerations of acceptability that may be enough to tip the balance of an innovation either in favour or against the likelihood of its longterm sustainability.

The literature on arsenic mitigation is dominated by scientific and technological publications. This is understandable given the complex geochemistry of groundwater arsenic and the challenge of providing technologies that will work consistently across the vast swathes of the countryside that are not only very poor but are afflicted also by other environmental hazards, such as floods. As yet, there is comparatively little work of the qualitative kind that we discuss in this paper, although questionnaires have been extensively employed (Caldwell et al., 2003; Paul, 2004).

DATA AND METHODS Data collection. The data collection, undertaken by Dr Hassan in 2001 in the course of his PhD studies, used a number of qualitative methods in the context of a participatory rural appraisal. In-depth interviews and focus-group discussions in particular were employed to elicit the peoples perceptions of suitable arsenic mitigation options and their relative merits and demerits. For the in-depth

interviews, open-structured questions were used so that a long discussion would be possible in each interview if appropriate. Some twenty-three in-depth interviews were undertaken, of which 11 were with people affected by arsenicosis and the remainder were from a wide variety of occupations. The focus-group discussions employed interaction discussion (Powell and Single, 1996) as a means of generating rich details of complex experien ces and the reasoning behind actions, beliefs, perceptions and attitudes (Carey, 1995). Five focus-groups were selected for this study, comprising people at various levels of income, literacy and land holding status, and also NGO and local government officials, social activists, political leaders, and local elected administrators.

The study area. The relevant data for this study were collected from Ghona Union (the 4th order local government administrative unit in Bangladesh) in Satkhira District of south-west Bangladesh, near the Indian border. The study area consists of 5 mauzas (the lowest level administrative territorial unit having separate jurisdiction list numbers in the revenue records) and 9 administrative wards having a total area of 17.26 Km2 with a population of about 11,000 in the 1991 census. The study area may be characterised as rural, with socio-economic conditions in terms of income, literacy level, and occupation pattern that are lower than the Bangladesh average.

Data analysis. The in-depth interviews and focus-group discussions were transcribed and divided into units based on the nature of the subject matter. These units were coded using topical codes, which were then grouped into clusters of similar topics and recoded using interpretive codes. Finally, the interpretive codes were grouped to reflect the themes (Winters, 1997). The resulting data were analysed from multiple perspectives using different analytical modes (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Silverman, 1993; and Wolcott, 1994). Thick description was used to consider the data without interpretation and abstraction (Geertz, 1973); ethnographic representation was used to create a rich descriptive narrative (Strauss and Corbin, 1998) and a vivid presentation of new understandings; and discourse analysis helped us to build new understandings and theory using high levels of interpretation and abstraction (Bunne, 1999 and Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

MITIGATION OPTIONS

There are several options for arsenic mitigation but most of them have not yet reached the study area. The Bangladesh Arsenic Mitigation & Water Supply Project (BAMWSP), the umbrella organization for a national water testing and health survey, has approved both the surface water and chemical options for mitigation purposes (The Daily Star (Dhaka): 6th July 2001). The BAMWSP has recommended some preventive measures and several available low-cost arsenic removal technologies to provide arsenic-free and microbiologically safe drinking water (http://www.bamwsp.org). This paper reviews the peoples perceptions about the suitability of some of the existing mitigation options.

Sharing existing arsenic-free tubewells Well-switching or the sharing of any existing arsenic-free tubewells is a community option for arsenic mitigation. The World Health Organization (2000) regards this to be the simplest and the most immediately achievable option , a view echoed by the UNICEF (2000), van Geen et al. (2002, 2003) and Caldwell et al (2003). From the field survey, however, we found that almost all of the tubewells in the study area are contaminated, very few producing water that is safe to drink. Many people are reluctant to use even these when they are in private hands because the sharing of such a scarce resource can cause tension and, in the words of one respondent it is embarrassing to collect water from a neighbouring tubewell. I have had bitter experiences in collecting from different tubewells. Tubewell-holders, on the other hand, claim that visitors may damage their tubewells, create a lot of noise and make the tubewell platform dirty. The present campaign of painting tubewells red or green in accordance with the results from arsenic analysis, the success of such an information campaign

depends upon people believing that the screening method is valid and accurate (Ahmed et al, 2003). In truth several of the test kits presently used to determine arsenic content are under a cloud because of the high potential for operator error in field conditions (Pande et al. 2001; Rahman et al. 2002) and many villagers are not impressed by the ability of experts to improve this or any other aspect of their lives.

Dug-wells The BAMWSP has recommended using shallow, dug-wells as a nonchemical based short-term mitigation option in highly arsenic-contaminated areas. These are a traditional source of water that was abandoned in the 1970s, and it is reported that the water from such wells is arsenic-free and it does not contain harmful chemicals or bacteria (UNICEF, 2000). Chakraborti (2001) found one tubewell containing a highly toxic 1.390 mg/l level of arsenic, whereas a dug-well located 10 metres away had only <0.003 mg/l of arsenic. Problems arise with dugwells during the dry months because, since the green revolution in the study area in the 1980s, extraction by machine-pumped deep tubewells for agricultural purposes has lowered the water table. Local people in the study region confirmed that if water were available in dug-wells, they would use it to reduce the risk of arsenic poisoning. This mirrors the experience of Jakariya et al. (2003).

Rainwater harvesting Rainwater harvesting is potentially an important source of arsenic-free drinking water. Both the BAMWSP and the UNICEF have recommended it as a viable strategy. It is a recognised and successful water technology in use in many

developing countries, including China, Sri Lanka and Thailand. Properly stored rainwater is safe from bacteria, and can be kept for many months (WHO, 2000). Research by the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research in Bangladesh confirms that rainwater can be a safe drinking source (UNICEF, 2000). This system has been used in coastal districts for years, and is now being introduced into arsenic-affected areas inland. People of the southern districts of Barisal division, for instance, store rainwater for drinking purposes (The Daily Star (Dhaka): 17th June, 2001. The NGO forum, a national-level NGO, first started a rainwater harvesting plant in Patuakhali District in 1999 and now about 190 such plants have been set up. The rainwater is collected using either impervious roofing material and guttering or a plastic sheet with the water being diverted to a storage container (WHO, 2000 and UNICEF, 2000). To minimize possible contamination from dirt and dust on the roof, the first few minutes of rainfall are allowed to run off before collecting the water. Since Bangladesh has a monsoon climate, people can preserve rainwater during the rainy season (June to September) for the dry months. Some respondents were positive about the use of rainwater, but mentioned that they need technological help, while others rejected it because of financial constraints. It is worth reminding ourselves that even the cheapest options are beyond the pocket of poor people in the study area, who anyway live in huts with straw roofs.

Use of surface water: digging ponds or reservoirs The Minister for Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives (LGRDC) in the Awami League Government promised in a

National Conference on Coordinated Action for Arsenic Mitigation Programme, which was co-organised by the Government of Bangladesh and UN Agencies on 27-28 February 1999, that the government would solve the arsenic problem within ten years by digging at least one pond in every union for arsenic-free drinking water in arsenic affected areas ( The Daily Star (Dhaka): 22nd September 1999). The field survey showed that local people were wary about such government policies. They thought the proposal to be untrustworthy and to have political spin. They asked how the government could resolve the problem within ten years, when arsenic concentrations are increasing rapidly, and when many government-owned ponds, tanks, and canals are occupied illegally. They also commented that the ponds would need to be renovated annually or the banks would break during the rainy season and dirty water enter. Pond water is not pathogen-free and its use for drinking can lead to different types of water-borne diseases. At the moment ponds are used for washing cattle, bathing, and laundry. Most people in the study area are not at all interested in using pond water; they prefer deep tubewells to any of the alternative mitigation options. In their view a deep tubewell is more economical to sink and maintain than digging and managing a pond. In one focus-group the participants estimated that to dig a medium-sized pond would cost TK75,000 ($1,200) and need more money each year for taking care of the pond. With such a budget it is possible to install 2-3 deep tubewells in Ghona.

Use of deep tubewell water People have come to know from many sources that arsenic-free safe drinking water is available from deep tubewells. They abandoned pond water about

three decades ago and now they are fully dependent on tubewells. One respondent told us that: I came to know from some training that tubewells installed at a depth between 100-150 feet have high levels of arsenic but concentrations are very low in deep tubewells. I then started using deep tubewell from Ghona Hatkhola [periodic market] and other people from this area are doing the same. I do not use my own tubewell water and do not allow others to do so. It is true that the deep aquifer is much less contaminated than the shallow one. A hydrogeological study conducted by the British Geological Survey tested 280 tubewells deeper than 200 metres, and found only two contaminated with arsenic (BGS, 1999). The Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE) has also tested many deep tubewells, and found only limited arsenic contamination (UNICEF, 2000). The use of deep tubewells has been suggested as a safe option in the face of arsenic contamination of groundwater in a report undertaken by the DPHE with financial assistance from the Japan International Cooperation Agency ( The Daily Star (Dhaka): 8th August 2001). People in our study area assume that it is the responsibility of the government to help poor people and provide deep tubewells for arsenic-free and safe water. It was suggested, for instance, that a deep tubewell for every 40-50

households free of cost is needed. A similar conclusion was reached by Caldwell et al. (2003), who insist that identifying households at risk is another key task of government. Despite their popularity amongst the people as a long-term solution, it may be that deep tubewells are not as safe as sometimes assumed. According to Mandal

et al (1996), in 1990 the Indian Public Health Engineering Department installed deep tubewells to depths of 150 metres in Nadia, where the shallow aquifer was found to be arsenic contaminated. At the outset the water was arsenic-free but in the course of time all of these deep tubewells have become contaminated.

Boiling surface water Boiled surface water is an important potential source of arsenic-free drinking water, but the field survey revealed worryingly that people assume that boiling tubewell water can remove the arsenic, whereas, in reality the risk is increased. Some respondents and participants showed a willingness to drink boiled water, but most people in Ghona are small farmers or agricultural labourers and they cannot afford firewood for the daily boiling of water.

Reflexive sedimentation A very simple, traditional technique for arsenic mitigation is to pani basi kore khaoa which means to drink water after letting it settle overnight (Alaerts et al, 2001). This reflexive sedimentation involves the lower one-third of the water in a storage jar being discarded after settling for 12 hours (Jones, 2000). Arsenic concentrations are reduced in the top layers. However, in the study area almost all of the tubewells contain a remarkably high level of iron concentration and, if water is left overnight, it becomes viscous and yellowish and loses its original taste. So, unfortunately reflexive sedimentation in this region yields tasteless and smelly water.

Low-cost technologies

10

There are several low-cost technological options for removing arsenic from the groundwater. The five most promising technologies presently being evaluated by the BAMWSP are Alcans enhanced activated alumina filter; the B angladesh University of Engineering and Technology activated alumina filter; the Sono 3kolshi method; Stevens Institute technology, where iron sulphate or iron chloride is added as a coagulator with an oxidising agent bleaching powder (Anwar, 2001); and the tetrahedron ion exchange resin filter (http://www.bamswp.org). Low-cost they may be in western terms but to rural people in the study area they remain beyond reach, and even where subsidised there have been problems of the amount of time required by the people (usually women) attending to them and the need of regular maintenance (Hoque et al., 2004).

Piped water systems Many towns and cities in Bangladesh have arsenic-free piped water systems. Satkhira Municipality has two water-lifting pumps, two overhead tanks and two water treatment plants to cover the whole municipality. Treated, piped water would be a suitable solution for inorganic arsenic poisoning, but the cost for this and the other affected areas of Bangladesh would be substantial. There is an issue as to whether treatment systems should use as their standard the arsenic concentrations allowed by the Bangladesh standard level (0.05 mg/l) or the much more stringent WHO permissible limit (0.01 mg/l). Satkhira Municipalitys system was installed recently by Dutch Aid but we found that it is not fully arsenic-free, operating at slightly higher than the DoE standard (0.053 mg/l). Nor is it environmentally friendly, the highly toxic arsenic sludge being disposed in a nearby canal (Pranshire Khal) without any treatment.

11

For a piped-water supply system to reach the rural areas, planners need to keep in mind the clustered form of settlement in Bangladesh. To minimize costs, treated water could be stored in reservoirs at some point of optimum distance from users and then supplied through a piped-system to each settlement cluster or community for easy access from a standpipe. This option was the overwhelming preference of the respondents in a study by Hoque et al., (2004).

CONCLUDING REMARKS The study has attempted to reveal peoples perceptions about the applicability and suitability of the different mitigation options. During in-depth interviews and focus-group discussions, people said that they are unable to afford most mitigation options and they are not willing or able to buy water for their drinking and cooking purposes. Amongst the low-cost technologies, most are not affordable by poor people but another factor is the reluctance amongst the population generally to adopt unfamiliar innovations when they are so fully adapted to the tubewell culture. It is essential in this regard to increase awareness and influence people to try safe options, for instance to use pond water by either boiling it or purifying it with a filter until a sustainable mitigation option is accessible. In our opinion, the best basis for such outreach is, first of all, to listen to the peoples voices about their present constraints, understandings and prejudices. information campaign might fail without such prior knowledge. A top-down

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

12

The senior author would like to express his sincere thanks to the Commonwealth Association for providing financial support for his Ph.D. The paper is based on his Ph.D. thesis.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmed J; Goldar BN; Misra S; and Jakariya M. 2003. Willingness to Pay for Arsenic-free, Safe Drinking Water in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Water and Sanitation Programme South Asia. Alaerts GJ; Khouri N; Kabir B. 2001. Strategies to Mitigate Arsenic Contamination of Water Supply. Washington, DC: United Nations Synthesis Report on Arsenic in Drinking Water. Anstiss R; Ahmed M; Islam S; Khan AW; and Arewgoda M. 2001. A sustainable community-based arsenic mitigation pilot project in Bangladesh. International Journal of Environmental Health Research , 11 (3): 267-274. Anwar J. 2001. Arsenic Mitigation: A Costly Delay. The Daily Star (Dhaka), January 8th. British Geological Survey. 1999. Groundwater Studies for Arsenic Contamination in Bangladesh. Phase I: Rapid Investigation Phase, Final Report, Dhaka: British Geological Survey. Brewster MD. 1992. Removing arsenic from contaminated wastewater. Environment and Technology, 4 (11): 54-57. Bunne M. 1999. Qualitative research methods in otorhinolaryngology. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 51: 1-10. Caldwell BK; Caldwell JC; Mitra SN; and Smith W. 2003. Searching for an optimum solution to the Bangladesh arsenic crisis. Social Science and Medicine, 56 (10): 2089-96. Carey MA. 1995. Concerns in the analysis of focus group data: comment. Qualitative Health Research, 5: 487-95. Water

13

Chakraborti D. 2001. Dugwell Survey Report During February 2001. Unpublished Report, SOES, Kolkata: Jadavpur University.

Chen HW; Frey MM; Clifford D; McNeill LS; and Edwards M. 1999. Arsenic treatment considerations. Journal of American Water Works Associations, 91 (3): 74-85.
Cheng CR; Liang S; Wang HC; and Beuhler MD. 1994. Enhanced coagulation for arsenic removal. Journal of American Water Works Associations, 86 (9): 79-90. Chowdhury S. 2001. Afflicted with arsenic. The Daily Star Weekend Magazine (Dhaka), January 26th. Geen, A. van, Ahmed, K.M., Seddique, A.A. & Shamsudduha, M. 2003. Community wells to mitigate the arsenic crisis in Bangladesh. Organization 81: 632-38. Geen, A. van, Ahsan, H., Horneman, A.H., Dhar et al. 2002. Promotion of well-switching to mitigate the arsenic crisis in Bangladesh. Organization 80, 732-37 Geertz C. 1973. Thick description: toward an interpretative theory of culture, in Geertz C. (ed). The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books. Ghurye G; Clifford D; and Tripp A. 1999. Combined arsenic and nitrate removal by ion exchange. Journal of American Water Works Associations, 91 (10): 85-96. Haq N. 2001. Massive arsenic mitigation activities in Comilla. The Daily Star (Dhaka), September 17, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Hassan MM. 2003. Arsenic Toxicity in Bangladesh: Health and Social Hazards . Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Durham Hassan, MM; Atkins, PJ; and Dunn, CE. 2003. The spatial pattern of risk from arsenic poisoning: a Bangladesh case study, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering, 38 (1): 1-24. Bulletin of the World Health Bulletin of the World Health

14

Hering JG; Chen PY; Wilkie JA; Elimelech M; and Liang S. 1996. Arsenic removal by ferric chloride. Journal of American Water Works Associations, 88 (4): 155-167. Hoque BA; Hoque MM; Ahmed T; Islam S; Azad AK; Ali N; Hossain M; and Hossain MS 2004. Demand-based water options for arsenic mitigation: an experience from rural Bangladesh. Public Health, 118 (1): 70-77. Hoque BA; Mahmood AA; Quadiruzzaman M; Khan F; Ahmed SA; Shafique S; Rahman M; Morshed G; Chowdhury T; Rahman MM; Khan FH; Shahjahan M; Begum M; and Hoque MM. 2000. Recommendations for water supply in arsenic mitigation: a case study from Bangladesh. Public Health, 114 (6): 488-494. Jakariya M; Chowdhury AMR; Hossain Z; Rahman M; Sarker Q; Khan RI; and Rahman M. 2003. Sustainable community-based safe water options to mitigate the Bangladesh arsenic catastrophe: an experience from two upazilas. Current Science, 85 (2): 141146. Jekel MR. 1994. Removal of arsenic in drinking water treatment, in; Nriagu JO (ed). Arsenic in the Environment: Cycling and Characterization - Part I. New York: Wiley. Jones E. 2000. Household Level Arsenic Removal Methodologies: Passive

Sedimentation, Bucket Treatment Unit and Safi Filter. (Preliminary Research Report: March), WaterAid Bangladesh. Kartinen EO and Martin CJ. 1995. An overview of arsenic removal processess. Desalination, 103 (1995): 79-88. Mandal BK; Chowdhury TR; Samanta G; Basu GK; Chowdhury PP; Chanda CR; Lodh D; Karan NK; Dhar RK; Tamili DK; Saha KC and Chakraborti D. 1996. Arsenic in groundwater in seven districts of West Bengal, India - the biggest arsenic calamity in the world. Current Science, 70 (11): 976-987. Miles M and Huberman A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage.

15

Pande SP; Deshpande LS; and Kaul SN. 2001. Laboratory and field assessment of arsenic testing field kits in Bangladesh and West Bengal, India, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 68(1): 1-18. Paul BM. 2004. Arsenic contamination awareness among the rural residents in Bangladesh. Social Science & Medicine, 59 (8), 1741-1755 Powell RA and Single HM. 1996. Methodology matters - V: focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 8 (5): 499-504. Rahman M; Mukherjee D; Sengupta M; Chowdhury U; Lodh D; Chanda C; Roy S; Selim M; Quamruzzaman Q; Milton A; Shahidullah S; Rahman MT; and Chakraborti D. 2002. Effectiveness and reliability of arsenic field testing kits: are the million dollar screening projects effective or not? Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 36 (24), 5385-94 Silverman D. 1993. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage. Strauss AL and Corbin J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage. UNICEF. 2000. Arsenic Mitigation in Bangladesh. (http://unicef.org/arsenic /arsenic.pdf). World Health Organization. 2000. Towards an Assessment of the Socioeconomic Impact of Arsenic Poisoning in Bangladesh. Geneva: World Health Organisation, (WHO/SDE/WSH/00.4). Winters CA. 1997. Living with chronic heart disease: a pilot study. The Qualitative Report. 3 (4). [http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-4/winters.html]. Wolcott HF. 1994. Transforming Qualitative Data: Description, Analysis and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

16